On 04/03/2013 22:08, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk > <mailto:breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk>> wrote: > > On 04/03/2013 20:46, Terry Reedy wrote: > > On 3/4/2013 11:36 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Brian Curtin > <brian at python.org <mailto:brian at python.org> > <mailto:brian at python.org <mailto:brian at python.org>>> wrote: > > The full announcement is at > > http://blog.python.org/2013/__03/introducing-electronic-__contributor.html > <http://blog.python.org/2013/03/introducing-electronic-contributor.html>, > but a summary follows. > > We've now moved to an electronic Contributor License > Agreement > form at > http://www.python.org/psf/__contrib/contrib-form/ > <http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/> which will > hopefully > ease the signing and sending of forms for our potential > contributors. > The form shows the required fields whether you're > signing as an > individual or a representative of an organization, and > removes the > need to print, scan, fax, etc. > > When a new contributor fills in the form, they are > emailed a copy of > the form and asked to confirm the email address that > they used (and > received that copy at). Upon confirming, the signed > form is sent to > the PSF Administrator and filed away. > > The signature can either be generated from your typed > name, or you > can > draw or upload your actual written signature if you choose. > > > With this in place I would like to propose that all patches > submitted to > bugs.python.org <http://bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org> must come from someone who has > signed the CLA before we consider committing it (if you want > to be truly > paranoid we could say that we won't even look at the code > w/o a CLA). > > > Either policy could be facilitated by tracker changes. In order > to see > the file upload box, one must login and the tracker knows who > has a CLA > on file (as indicated by a * suffix on the name). If a file is > uploaded > by someone without, a box could popup with the link to the > e-form and a > message that a CLA is required. > > > People already use the bug tracker as an excuse not to contribute, > wouldn't this requirement make the situation worse? > > > Depends on your paranoia. If you're worried about accidentally lifting > IP merely by reading someone's source code, then you wouldn't want to > touch code without the CLA signed. > > Now I'm not that paranoid, but I'm still not about to commit someone's > code now without the CLA signed to make sure we are legally covered for > the patch. If someone chooses not to contribute because of the CLA > that's fine, but since we have already told at least Anatoly that we > won't accept patches from him until he signs the CLA I'm not going to > start acting differently towards others. I view legally covering our ass > by having someone fill in a form is worth the potential loss of some > contribution in the grand scheme of things. > > Who's talking source code, you're previously mentioned *ALL* patches needing a CLA. Does this mean you have to sign a CLA for a one line documentation patch? What is the definition of a patch, an actual patch file or a proposal for a change that is given within a bug tracker message? -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4